Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo, you're saying somebody can only be a great debator if the argument can be substantiated...
no, its the debating equivalent of a beautiful lady who despite her appeal, is naught but an airhead!
What about people debating God?
Or people debating morality?
Surely the way one argues something is more important than the actual substantiation?
You could, for example, suggest that if you drop a plate from 10 meters high it will never hit the floor. For, before it drops the full length, it must fall half of that length. And then half again. Then half again.
Pure logical reasoning suggests that something must always travel half a distance before a full distance, does it not? So, something can never travel a full distance, because there's always a half...uh... half way between.
However, this pure logic cannot be substantiated. Drop your wife's wedding china to test it if you don't believe me. You see, it will actually hit that god damned floor.
So, although logically it can't, in reality it does (and that's something which logically can't be substantiated).
So, I say to thee, until you can drop that china without it hitting the floor (or anything else for that matter), you can't base debating prowess on substantiation.
2 edits
Originally posted by shavixmirno, what i am saying is that as we know, debate is nothing more than the art of persuasion, therefore if your arguments seem substantiated and therefor more plausible and reasonable you will win the debate, even in matters of religion and morality.
So, you're saying somebody can only be a great debator if the argument can be substantiated...
What about people debating God?
Or people debating morality?
Surely the way one argues something is more important than the actual substantiation?
You could, for example, suggest that if you drop a plate from 10 meters high it will never hit the floor. r (or anything else for that matter), you can't base debating prowess on substantiation.
for example, you may state, that miracles are scientifically improbable based on scientific data. now if i use that same source, I elevate my argument to the same level and it therefore becomes much more difficult to refute,
for example i could quote Hawkins, who stated (with regard to the beginning of the universe) that 'the known laws of physics would break down', i could cite the effects of electromagnetism on water, the so called 'Moses effect', or the strange behavior of lead, which becomes a super conductor when frozen to an extreme temperature, thus its perfectly scientific to state that strange things happen under strange circumstances etc etc etc. all are designed to appeal to reason, and thus persuade. however, if i just give a personal experience, without any substantiating arguments, or a personal opinion, then who will I persuade, probably no one. 🙂
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI've NEVER seen someone 'fold on any point' here.
Oh yes, FMF has a unique perspective on debates here. I enjoy the
way he perceives most topics as hit issues.
I've yet to see him fold on any point and he has a way of driving right to
the crux of a debating point.
This forum could well be renamed to the Pontification and Propaganda Forum.
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirThanks for giving Xeno another run. Pure logic also says that a body in motion will continue in motion until acted upon by an external force. In this case the floor hitting the plate with equal and opposite energy, which unless the plate is lucky will usually smash it. Take gravity as being 10m/s/s and friction(drag) over that distance to be zero, then by Newton we have
You could, for example, suggest that if you drop a plate from 10 meters high it will never hit the floor. For, before it drops the full length, it must fall half of that length. And then half again. Then half again.
Pure logical reasoning suggests that something must always travel half a distance before a full distance, does it not?
s = ut + 0.5 at^2 (a=gravity) ( s = displacement)
==> 10 = (0xt ) + 0.5 gt^2 ( u=initial velocity =0)
==> 10 = 0.5(10t^2)
==> 20 = 10t^2
==> 2 = t^2
==> t = sqrt 2 secs = 1.414 secs approx.
So we know that the plate will take less than 1.5 secs to hit the floor. Why does the paradox of it having to fall half the distance each time seem a compelling enough logic for it not to crash to the ground?
The answer lies partly in the way the paradox is framed. The falling a half distance at every stage is meant to introduce an infinite series of falls, each half the distance of the previous fall. What that may not tell you, is that the plate reaches the floor in the limit of that infinite sum, and that it reaches it pretty rapidly.
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimono, i think he was referring to the intellectually nullifying effect that blindly following a religious character without substantiation or reason may bring, i could be wrong of course, therefore it seems that its, not so much gibberish, but of course propaganda. hes still a mince debater, for he will try to flog a tenuous argument for arguments sake, and when it fails or is refuted, resort to other tactics, such as condescension and personal attack.
"The Invisible Pink Unicorn does not have as many human spirits pickled in vinegar as "Jesus"." for example, is meaningless gibberish.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiegood analysis.
no, i think he was referring to the intellectually nullifying effect that blindly following a religious character without substantiation or reason may bring, i could be wrong of course, therefore it seems that its, not so much gibberish, but of course propaganda. hes still a mince debater, for he will try to flog a tenuous argument for arguments sak ...[text shortened]... when it fails or is refuted, resort to other tactics, such as condescension and personal attack.
Originally posted by shavixmirInteresting. I often wonder what is more important, the ability to make ones point or the ability to stand on ones convictions. For example, I think we have all been apart of debates that seem to be on the loosing side only to be proven correct after the fact. It reminds me of the song by Sting which is about the ability of politicians to rape people using their logic and superior intellectually ability. The only response one can muster is, "A doo, doo, da, its all I want to say to you" because they refuse to let their arguements over turn their convictions/beliefs.
Surely the way one argues something is more important than the actual substantiation?
Originally posted by whodeyIf you can't defend your opinion properly, then you should at least stop to think about the grounds on which it stands.
Interesting. I often wonder what is more important, the ability to make ones point or the ability to stand on ones convictions. For example, I think we have all been apart of debates that seem to be on the loosing side only to be proven correct after the fact. It reminds me of the song by Sting which is about the ability of politicians to rape people using ...[text shortened]... o say to you" because they refuse to let their arguements over turn their convictions/beliefs.